slander of title
-
Tom Milo
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 1:09 pm
slander of title
Has anyone ever been threatened or a lawsuit filed against them for slander of title when filing a record of survey?
Tom Milo
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
The thought never occurred to me, but I can see where someone might do that. That's just scarey.
If this has happened we need legislation to negate our liability.
If this has happened we need legislation to negate our liability.
Defund govt
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
-
Tom Milo
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 1:09 pm
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
This is definitely something our legal scholars need to look into.
Something like this could drive the cost of lot surveys, or any boundary survey, out of reach exc for the uber rich.
Something like this could drive the cost of lot surveys, or any boundary survey, out of reach exc for the uber rich.
Defund govt
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Clarification please
did the threat arise because you filed a record of survey or because of the content of your filing? google slapp suit
-
Tom Milo
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 1:09 pm
-
Anthony Maffia
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:52 pm
- Location: Contra Costa County, CA
From the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_of_title
The State of California has adopted the definition of slander of title set forth in section 624 of the Restatement of Torts reading as follows: "One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another's property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused."
I require a lawyer to explain those last few lines, though.
The State of California has adopted the definition of slander of title set forth in section 624 of the Restatement of Torts reading as follows: "One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another's property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused."
I require a lawyer to explain those last few lines, though.
- Anthony Maffia, LSIT
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
Slander has to be proven that what was done was untrue and caused harm to the party slandered.
The bad part is a suit like this could cost a surveyor $1000's of dollars, recoup able only thru counter suit.
Thousands of starving attorneys out there looking for someone elses money. Some of those starving attys become politicians hence the reason the mess this Country is in.
For PITA lawsuits just remember that atty that sends his apprentices out to blackmail small businesses that don't meet ADA codes.
Jessie Jackson is another example.
The bad part is a suit like this could cost a surveyor $1000's of dollars, recoup able only thru counter suit.
Thousands of starving attorneys out there looking for someone elses money. Some of those starving attys become politicians hence the reason the mess this Country is in.
For PITA lawsuits just remember that atty that sends his apprentices out to blackmail small businesses that don't meet ADA codes.
Jessie Jackson is another example.
Defund govt
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
The late Steven Gardner was involved in such a case in El Dorado County. By all accounts I've heard, Steven was an otherwise pretty good surveyor, but he really stepped in it on this job.
This case was not published, but the court goes into detail discussing the facts of the case and the elements of Slander of Title.
Steve told me that a couple of the facts that went into his decision making on this one were:
1) knowledge that the RCE who performed the first 2 PMs mentioned in the case (Wolff) was working under a revoked license at the time, which for Steve, brought the validity of the PM into question, (I haven't checked on Wolff's licensing history, this is just what Steven told me) and
2) When the aliquot division lines were established on the North side of the Consumnes River, it appeared that Wolff did not properly retrace the portion of the section South of the River and so performed an improper section subdivision.
Since Wollf's license was apparently not in effect when he prepared one or both of the PM's, Steven assumed that the subdivision would have been invalid and felt it was his job to redivide the section by proper procedure per BLM Ch. 3 (1973 Manual).
The court either was not informed of Wolff's licensing status at any point in the past, or it didn't care enough to address the effect, or lack of effect that has on a subdivision which had been approved, filed, and the lines of which had been long occupied to. The court repeatedly referred to Steve's RS as a "bogus" survey, not because he performed poor measurements or improperly calculated a section breakdown, but because he refused to recognize boundaries established on the ground by previous affected landowners on a filed subdivision, and which had been recognized by all successors intitle interest since.
The underlying descriptions to the properties that were subject of the Parcel Maps (Peterson for PM 16-09, Price for PM 19-110) described their common line as being some distance westerly of and parallel to the E line of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4. Wolff first established that line on the ground for Peterson in PM 16-09. Price later hired Wolff to divide his property. Wolff naturally used the lines he had previously established and Price accepted the survey, constituting a documented and recorded agreed boundary between Peterson & Price, regardless of where it should have been established in the first place.
The lesson of that one is that if a surveyor ignores established boundaries in favor of proper math to correct the surveys by which the boundaries were established, he is opening himself and/or his client up to a Slander of Title suit. The corollary can also be true. If the surveyor misidentifies a line that was not placed with the intention of establishing a boundary, he maybe opening himself and his client to a Slander of Title suit.
EDIT: Attached PUBLICLY FILED maps removed at the request of the administrator. In the conversation with the administrator, I was told that the spirit of the rule against posting the work product of others was not violated in my attaching these maps, but that the letter of the rule was. The letter of the rule is being followed here because a complaint was made that the rule was being enforced selectively.
The rule was made because there were those who would post the work product of another for the sole reason of finding fault with it and for publicly ridiculing and/or deriding the competence and professional integrity of the maker of the work product. This was often done without inquiry or consideration of the intended purpose of the work product, the circumstances under which it was made, whether or not it was a final product, or how the poster came about obtaining a copy.
The administrator did not say the name of the complainant, only that it was someone who has made many complaints to and about CLSA recently. I did not press for the name. If that person is who I believe it is, I find it ironic that the person making the complaint was one who made some of the most viscious personal attacks of those whose work product was posted for the purpose of derision, and who often made those attacks without the background inquiries which might find reasonable explanation of observed supposed breaches of good practice or violations. It is doubly ironic that the complainant (if I am correct in my estimation of who it is) once had one of his own preliminary maps posted by someone else for the purpose of pointing to some supposed poor practice or violation of law. As this person once posted often here, he was able, in fairly short order, provide reasonable explanation.
Since that person no longer frequents this forum, I suspect that he was made aware through one of his employees. That employee has often demonstrated a keener interest in arguing from his limited knowldege and experience base as an LSIT rather than seeking to learn from others or even making an effort to understand the perspective of others. In a PM exchange, I had offered to send that person the full set of data and maps I have on this matter for his own education. Rather than accepting the offer, that individual decided to continue debate from a position of ignorance. No such offer will be extended to that person in the future as it appears he is more comfortable making bold assertions from a position of ignorance than learning and possibly coming to the realization that he had been previously mistaken.
Anyone else who is interested in learning from Steve Gardner's unfortunate learning experience about slander of title is welcome to contact me and I will gladly provide what I have on the matter.
This case was not published, but the court goes into detail discussing the facts of the case and the elements of Slander of Title.
Steve told me that a couple of the facts that went into his decision making on this one were:
1) knowledge that the RCE who performed the first 2 PMs mentioned in the case (Wolff) was working under a revoked license at the time, which for Steve, brought the validity of the PM into question, (I haven't checked on Wolff's licensing history, this is just what Steven told me) and
2) When the aliquot division lines were established on the North side of the Consumnes River, it appeared that Wolff did not properly retrace the portion of the section South of the River and so performed an improper section subdivision.
Since Wollf's license was apparently not in effect when he prepared one or both of the PM's, Steven assumed that the subdivision would have been invalid and felt it was his job to redivide the section by proper procedure per BLM Ch. 3 (1973 Manual).
The court either was not informed of Wolff's licensing status at any point in the past, or it didn't care enough to address the effect, or lack of effect that has on a subdivision which had been approved, filed, and the lines of which had been long occupied to. The court repeatedly referred to Steve's RS as a "bogus" survey, not because he performed poor measurements or improperly calculated a section breakdown, but because he refused to recognize boundaries established on the ground by previous affected landowners on a filed subdivision, and which had been recognized by all successors intitle interest since.
The underlying descriptions to the properties that were subject of the Parcel Maps (Peterson for PM 16-09, Price for PM 19-110) described their common line as being some distance westerly of and parallel to the E line of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4. Wolff first established that line on the ground for Peterson in PM 16-09. Price later hired Wolff to divide his property. Wolff naturally used the lines he had previously established and Price accepted the survey, constituting a documented and recorded agreed boundary between Peterson & Price, regardless of where it should have been established in the first place.
The lesson of that one is that if a surveyor ignores established boundaries in favor of proper math to correct the surveys by which the boundaries were established, he is opening himself and/or his client up to a Slander of Title suit. The corollary can also be true. If the surveyor misidentifies a line that was not placed with the intention of establishing a boundary, he maybe opening himself and his client to a Slander of Title suit.
EDIT: Attached PUBLICLY FILED maps removed at the request of the administrator. In the conversation with the administrator, I was told that the spirit of the rule against posting the work product of others was not violated in my attaching these maps, but that the letter of the rule was. The letter of the rule is being followed here because a complaint was made that the rule was being enforced selectively.
The rule was made because there were those who would post the work product of another for the sole reason of finding fault with it and for publicly ridiculing and/or deriding the competence and professional integrity of the maker of the work product. This was often done without inquiry or consideration of the intended purpose of the work product, the circumstances under which it was made, whether or not it was a final product, or how the poster came about obtaining a copy.
The administrator did not say the name of the complainant, only that it was someone who has made many complaints to and about CLSA recently. I did not press for the name. If that person is who I believe it is, I find it ironic that the person making the complaint was one who made some of the most viscious personal attacks of those whose work product was posted for the purpose of derision, and who often made those attacks without the background inquiries which might find reasonable explanation of observed supposed breaches of good practice or violations. It is doubly ironic that the complainant (if I am correct in my estimation of who it is) once had one of his own preliminary maps posted by someone else for the purpose of pointing to some supposed poor practice or violation of law. As this person once posted often here, he was able, in fairly short order, provide reasonable explanation.
Since that person no longer frequents this forum, I suspect that he was made aware through one of his employees. That employee has often demonstrated a keener interest in arguing from his limited knowldege and experience base as an LSIT rather than seeking to learn from others or even making an effort to understand the perspective of others. In a PM exchange, I had offered to send that person the full set of data and maps I have on this matter for his own education. Rather than accepting the offer, that individual decided to continue debate from a position of ignorance. No such offer will be extended to that person in the future as it appears he is more comfortable making bold assertions from a position of ignorance than learning and possibly coming to the realization that he had been previously mistaken.
Anyone else who is interested in learning from Steve Gardner's unfortunate learning experience about slander of title is welcome to contact me and I will gladly provide what I have on the matter.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Elmer Kent had surveyed a property to the East (other side of Nelidev property). See his note along the E line of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4. He recognized the discrepancy between the line established on the ground with the location had the line been originally properly established. He noted the matter but recognized the established line in this case.
The reason (or one of the resons) Steve and his client lost this suit is because several surveyors had followed after Wolff and each, while acknowledging that the aliquot line had not been properly established, also recognized that the boundary had been 1) established as reflected on a properly filed subdivision, and 2) accepted by the other affected landowner as documented and recorded in his own subdivision. Each of these surveyors and the County Surveyor, either through their work or by directly advising either Steven or his client, had advised that the line as established must be accepted as the property line reflected in the deeds. This copious amount of advice was ignored. That established that Steven and the Zen people should have reasonably known that the line properly calculated but improperly accepted and established by Steve was a false location of the boundary.
EDIT: Elmer Kent's fine example of a well performed survey in which he gave full professional consideration to field evidence was removed at the request of the administrator. See the EDIT note at the end of the immediately previous post.
The reason (or one of the resons) Steve and his client lost this suit is because several surveyors had followed after Wolff and each, while acknowledging that the aliquot line had not been properly established, also recognized that the boundary had been 1) established as reflected on a properly filed subdivision, and 2) accepted by the other affected landowner as documented and recorded in his own subdivision. Each of these surveyors and the County Surveyor, either through their work or by directly advising either Steven or his client, had advised that the line as established must be accepted as the property line reflected in the deeds. This copious amount of advice was ignored. That established that Steven and the Zen people should have reasonably known that the line properly calculated but improperly accepted and established by Steve was a false location of the boundary.
EDIT: Elmer Kent's fine example of a well performed survey in which he gave full professional consideration to field evidence was removed at the request of the administrator. See the EDIT note at the end of the immediately previous post.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Steve squeaked out of that one because he was already admitted as an expert in the case so his actions were priviledged.
Slander of Title may be a natural reaction by frustrated property owners if the prevailing wisdom in Land Surveying continues to be to ignore long established boundaries and reliance on old Surveys.
Alan Wolff is notorious in the Sacramento Region and not in a good way. The Courts didn't really seem to care that Alan Wolff had his license already revoked when the second PM was signed by him.
Slander of Title may be a natural reaction by frustrated property owners if the prevailing wisdom in Land Surveying continues to be to ignore long established boundaries and reliance on old Surveys.
Alan Wolff is notorious in the Sacramento Region and not in a good way. The Courts didn't really seem to care that Alan Wolff had his license already revoked when the second PM was signed by him.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
Tom Milo
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 1:09 pm
This should be interesting. Old parcels sold off many years ago by metes and bounds. No prior surveys of record, no old surveys found. Old fence line estimated at 60 plus years old ignored on newer survey, but assumed to be property line before the survey. Fence line is monumented with an old iron pipe, but no tag, no map of record.
Tom Milo
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
Do you know if Marvin Wolff is related to Alan? Marvin surveyed a good deal of Santa Clara County for many years.Dave Karoly, PLS wrote:Steve squeaked out of that one because he was already admitted as an expert in the case so his actions were priviledged.
Slander of Title may be a natural reaction by frustrated property owners if the prevailing wisdom in Land Surveying continues to be to ignore long established boundaries and reliance on old Surveys.
Alan Wolff is notorious in the Sacramento Region and not in a good way. The Courts didn't really seem to care that Alan Wolff had his license already revoked when the second PM was signed by him.
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
Frosts pipe is where in relation to the fence?Tom Milo wrote:This should be interesting. Old parcels sold off many years ago by metes and bounds. No prior surveys of record, no old surveys found. Old fence line estimated at 60 plus years old ignored on newer survey, but assumed to be property line before the survey. Fence line is monumented with an old iron pipe, but no tag, no map of record.
-
Dave Karoly, PLS
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
- Location: Sacramento
I don't know if Alan was related to Marvin.
Alan Wolff was a Civil Engineer. He had his license revoked for a laundry list of violations including failing to file (who didn't fail to file in the 1970s?), incompetence, failing to finish contract work, etc.
Steve Gardner gave me a copy of the stack of the materials on Alan he got from the board.
Alan Wolff was a Civil Engineer. He had his license revoked for a laundry list of violations including failing to file (who didn't fail to file in the 1970s?), incompetence, failing to finish contract work, etc.
Steve Gardner gave me a copy of the stack of the materials on Alan he got from the board.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
-
LS_8750
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
- Location: Sonoma
- Contact:
Mr. Page, thank you for stepping in and keeping this discussion forum alive.
Excellent topic and excellent breakdown.
Beware of the corollary, depends on which side you fall on. Walking the razor's edge. The plight of the land surveyor.
Too bad so many of us are whores. There is tremendous value in what we do.
Excellent topic and excellent breakdown.
Beware of the corollary, depends on which side you fall on. Walking the razor's edge. The plight of the land surveyor.
Too bad so many of us are whores. There is tremendous value in what we do.
Clark E. Stoner, PE, PLS
Bear Flag Engineering, Inc.
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
clark@bearflagcivil.com
Bear Flag Engineering, Inc.
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
clark@bearflagcivil.com
-
LS_8750
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
- Location: Sonoma
- Contact:
Mr. Page, thank you for stepping in and keeping this discussion forum alive.
Excellent topic and excellent breakdown.
Beware of the corollary, depends on which side you fall on. Walking the razor's edge. The plight of the land surveyor.
Too bad so many of us are whores. There is tremendous value in what we do.
Excellent topic and excellent breakdown.
Beware of the corollary, depends on which side you fall on. Walking the razor's edge. The plight of the land surveyor.
Too bad so many of us are whores. There is tremendous value in what we do.
Clark E. Stoner, PE, PLS
Bear Flag Engineering, Inc.
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
clark@bearflagcivil.com
Bear Flag Engineering, Inc.
Sonoma County
Santa Cruz County
tel. 707.996.8449 (Sonoma) or 831.477.9215 (Santa Cruz)
clark@bearflagcivil.com
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
Courts and County Surveyors never cease to amaze me at the decisions they make and are sometimes contradictory to their own previous decisions.
We really need to add at least one, two would be better, zeros to our bndry survey fees.
We really need to add at least one, two would be better, zeros to our bndry survey fees.
Defund govt
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
-
bruce hall
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:18 pm
- Location: huntington beach, orange county, california
How this came up, I do not know. But that being said
........... "There is tremendous value in what we do" said the "lady of the night".
Haven't checked the forum rules on this type of discussion. Let's see what happens.
Haven't checked the forum rules on this type of discussion. Let's see what happens.
Bruce Hall Land Surveyor No. 4743
5732 Middlecoff Drive
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649
714 840 4380
5732 Middlecoff Drive
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649
714 840 4380
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
LOLbruce hall wrote:........... "There is tremendous value in what we do" said the "lady of the night".
Haven't checked the forum rules on this type of discussion. Let's see what happens.
Defund govt
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
-
hellsangle
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
- Location: Sonoma, CA
- Contact:
How 'bout Statutes of Fraud?
I'm from old school: Survey title. Show occupation.
Now, if SHOWING occupation (that does not coincide with line of title) slanders title . . . then I would suppose fraud has occurred . . . in that you are not telling the full "story" . . . i.e. exposing future lenders and title insurers to potential liability(s)?
Another reason to make sure you "get it right" in opining a boundary - if you're going to document discrepancies.
Wooley, I would hope you chime in here 'cause you have a whole bunch more knowledge on the subject of fraud.
Have a good weekend, all . . .
Phil - Sonoma
Now, if SHOWING occupation (that does not coincide with line of title) slanders title . . . then I would suppose fraud has occurred . . . in that you are not telling the full "story" . . . i.e. exposing future lenders and title insurers to potential liability(s)?
Another reason to make sure you "get it right" in opining a boundary - if you're going to document discrepancies.
Wooley, I would hope you chime in here 'cause you have a whole bunch more knowledge on the subject of fraud.
Have a good weekend, all . . .
Phil - Sonoma
-
mpallamary
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm
I have been involved in two cases where this occurred. In one case, the other surveyor had to pony up $25K to settle the case. In the other, I was also the opposing expert and I urged my client not to sue the other surveyor who lost the case. I was trying to protect him. The client, an attorney felt he had grounds to sue the surveyor because the court declared his survey in error. In other words, because the surveyor did not do a proper job, he was liable. I believe that logic works. When we asked the other surveyor how he ran out the metes and bounds description of the property his answer was, "My drafter pushed an adjustment button." What happened is the surveyor reestablished the property corners by an AUTOCAD adjustment without running the deed out and he did not know even what kind of adjustment it was other than "a button." The other survey created massive problems for my client as he did not have a 20 foot panhandle as called for in his deed. Because the surveyor ran the M&B by adjustment out by some kind of adjustment, his panhandle was about 19.5 feet wide and he had insufficient legal frontage. As I said, I talked the client out of suing the surveyor. If the surveyor could have explained what he did, the court may have ruled differently. He was found guilty of negligence for not knowing how his drafter established the boundary. Responsible charge you say? In this case, I think there are grounds for slander of title. If the other surveyor had made a mistake, it would have been different but he made a conscious decision to make the bad adjustment. Food for thought.
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
Sue first discuss it later.
I worked for a surveyor that didn't carry E&O because "when a error is made it's better to work it out client to provider. When you have E&O the first thought is to sue as the E&O company is seen as deep pockets, and most times the insurance company won't fight it if they can settle for less. Then right or wrong is not determined and the surveyor has higher rates due to his alleged error."
Another major firm I worked for didn't own a thing. Everything down to the keyboards, and phones were leased. Go ahead and sue - there is nothing there.
Some surveyors justly need to be smacked hard. Others I have known are so busy finding work to keep their employees busy and meet deadlines that they just accept the map their employee made and sign it. I know I have missed things on dwgs that someone else drew up that I would not have missed had I done the office work on it.
How do you distinguish between a "down and dirty work" error and a oops. Can't without a sit down with the parties involved.
I worked for a surveyor that didn't carry E&O because "when a error is made it's better to work it out client to provider. When you have E&O the first thought is to sue as the E&O company is seen as deep pockets, and most times the insurance company won't fight it if they can settle for less. Then right or wrong is not determined and the surveyor has higher rates due to his alleged error."
Another major firm I worked for didn't own a thing. Everything down to the keyboards, and phones were leased. Go ahead and sue - there is nothing there.
Some surveyors justly need to be smacked hard. Others I have known are so busy finding work to keep their employees busy and meet deadlines that they just accept the map their employee made and sign it. I know I have missed things on dwgs that someone else drew up that I would not have missed had I done the office work on it.
How do you distinguish between a "down and dirty work" error and a oops. Can't without a sit down with the parties involved.
Defund govt
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?
To fully fund govt first the national debt would have to be paid. The US Govt is $18 TRILLION in debt, using 350 million people in the USA it would require $51,000 from every man, woman and child to pay it off. And that's just the Federal debt. Did you write your check yet?